TOPICS OF THE DAY.
A NATIONAL PARTY.
THE letter of "A Liberal Member" in the Birmingham Daily Post of Wednesday, on the possible coalition between the Tories and the Liberal Unionists under Lord Harlington, has attracted a great deal of attention. "A Liberal Member" is understood to be Mr. Jesse Collings, and the remarkable letter which he has written to the Birmingham Daily Post is therefore understood to imply that Mr. Chamber- lain is not only disposed to assent cordially to such a coalition, but even to look forward to it with some impatience, as the natural consequence of the train of circumstances which have already led to Mr. Goschen's absorption into the Government, and which appear to be tending still more strongly in the direc- tion of a thorough liberalising of the Conservative Party. We are heartily with the writer of this remarkable letter in wishing to see Lord Harlington at the head of a powerful party, which, whether it call itself Conservative-Liberal, or Liberal-Conservative, or National, or Whig, should at all events rally all the strong Unionist feeling in England to its support, and should make the real improvement of the con- dition of the population of both islands its main object, while maintaining a strong, moderate, and firm foreign policy, favour- able to peace, though not disposed to sacrifice everything in order to maintain it. But when "A Liberal Member " makes it the keynote of his letter that the Conservative Party should show themselves willing "to accept a progressive, not to say Radical policy, such as Lord Randolph Churchill, for example, has placed before them," we do not find hie view made at all the more attractive by the name which he has chosen to repro. sent the Conservative wing of the party. "Faithful, though unfortunate," is the motto of the Churchills. "Fortunate, though unfaithful," would have suited the great founder of the family fortunes better ; and it is a motto which would happily describe Lord Randolph's career. He deserted Sir Stafford Northcote, and founded the Fourth Party. He deserted the last Government, and founded the economical party,—and that within a year from the great speech in which he derided the notion of economising at the cost of military and naval services, which, he said, ought to be increased. In a word, Lord Randolph Churchill, with a great deal of talent, and especially with no little tact, is just the man whom the bulk of the Unionist Party would distrust if placed in any leading position as the keystone of a Ministry. In the days of the Fourth Party, he was the man who alone among Conservatives loved to finesse with the Parnellites, and not unfrequently led them into the division-lobby. It was he who had the credit, at all events, of negotiating with them in the autumn of 1885, when the Conservative Government agreed to reconsider the sentences of the Maamtrasna murderers ; and it was by his mouth that the most serious attack on Lord Spencer's administration of Ireland was made. It seems to us that though we cannot afford to refuse the help of any able man for the Unionist cause, the last man in the world on whom it would be well for Unionists to build as representing the national policy would be Lord Randolph Churchill. Nor can we conceive how a National Party which is to look to Lord Harlington as its head,—the most prudent, steady, loyal, and sagacious of all the Unionist group,—could build much on the services of the flightiest and flashiest amongst the Conservative group with which he has usually been associated. Lord Randolph Churchill has already distinguished himself by an attack on Mr. Goschen. Could a Government which relied at all seriously on Lord Randolph really avail itself of Mr. Goschen's great abilities ? Could a Government which relied greatly on Mr. Goschen, avail itself freely of Lord Randolph's talents as a guerilla leader When Lord Har- tington is spoken of as the head of a National Party, it should be implied, we think, that his Administration, if it were ever formed, should unite in it all that is steadiest and most sagacious in either the Conservative-Liberal or the Liberal-Conservative Party, but should dispense with all that is at all likely to excite distrust by superfluous violence or by any appearance of demagogic art. Such a Government as " A Liberal Member " suggests must include a considerable number of Conservatives, if it is to represent really the National Party at all. It must certainly include and give considerable prominence to Mr. Chamberlain, who has been a great pillar of the Unionist cause. lint far greater confidence would, we believe, be placed in Mr. Chamberlain if he were not to be closely associated with Lord Randolph Churchill, than if he were. That astute and shifty Unionist has made himself conspicuous less as a Conservative than as a denouncer of Liberal statesmen, and especially as a personal assailant of Mr. Gladstone, against whom he published an election address in 1886 which scandalised every right-minded man. 'Mr. Chamberlain has entitled himself to the heartfelt gratitude of every true Unionist by his brilliant services to the Unionist cause ; but it is certain that he would be much more attractive to Conservatives as Lord Hartington's trusted colleague than as Lord Randolph Churchill's trusted colleague ; indeed, if the sober feeling of the nation is to be expressed by such a Government as "A Liberal Member " has sketched out, We hardly think that the Conservative elements of such a Government should include Lord Randolph Churchill at all. If the National Party are not to be eminently trustworthy, they had better leave things just as they are. Mr. Chamberlain alone would be guarantee enough for progressive action. We need such a guarantee ; but we need also a guarantee against sensational surprises. And any Government in which Lord Randolph Churchill held a conspicuous place would be almost certain to give the country a sensational surprise of a character not likely to be pleasant.
It will be said, perhaps, that the Conservatives are likely to put on the drag too often and too strongly, unless there be high in the counsels of the National Party, one of their own leaders who is committed to a progressive policy. Well, in the first place, even Radicals must make some sacrifice for a strong Unionist Government in such a crisis as the present. We cannot secure at one and the same stroke all the stamina, all the staying power, of a party which loves to hold by safe traditions, and all the reforming force of a party which loves to see each year better than the last. While the Union is in danger, we must make stability our great end, and it is clear that stability will not be promoted by giving a leading part to Lord Randolph Churchill. In the next place, Lord Harlington and Mr. Chamberlain are themselves guarantees of progress quite potent enough for the masses of the Con- servative Party. Nor will this be the only one. The really potent guarantee for the progressiveness of the new National Party is the change effected by Mr. Gladstone in 1885. It is impossible for a party which grounds itself on the popular vote to remain in its essence unpopular. It will get no popular support if it does. It may and will ground its popularity much more on the love of the people for the old customs, than the party which founds its popular claims on the dislike of the people to the old restraints. But neither can the former party afford to stand by restraints which are felt to be galling, nor can the latter afford to advocate the throwing-off of restraints to which the great mass of the people are heartily attached. There is no need at all to secure the ',ingressiveness of a National Party by relying on the influence of such a leader as Lord Randolph Churchill. What with the character of the constituencies, the firm Liberalism of Lord Harlington, and the ardent Radicalism of Mr. Cham- berlain, there would be security enough that no National Party of which these two statesmen were leaders, would stand still. And for the rest, we submit that Lord Salisbury is a far safer Conservative ally than Lord Randolph, and has far more influence over the masses of his party. If a National Party is to be formed, we should say that it should be a Hartington-Salisbury Party rather than a Harlington- Churchill Party, though a Harlington-Salisbury Party in which Mr. Chamberlain would be entitled to a prominent place. Probably the whole discussion is as yet premature. But the moment when issues of this kind are first raised, is the moment when it is most useful to point out the error by which a new line of action, otherwise promising, would be most likely to be diverted into failure, or even into disaster.
Previous page
